“Without pain, how could we know joy?' This is an old argument in the field of thinking about suffering and its stupidity and lack of sophistication could be plumbed for centuries but suffice it to say that the existence of broccoli does not, in any way, affect the taste of chocolate.” John Green to the rescue.
wow i love you for quoting john green, but i was thinking of that quote a while ago and food definetly wouldnt be the best example because there would still be lots of horrible foods and lots of good tasting foods. if we all only ate chocolate it would still have a great taste, although we'd get used to it and its magnificence would definetly wear off. Kind of like what scientist was saying above.
Well the point I'm trying to make is that there would be little value to things you and I call "good" if the things you and I call "bad" don't exist. I believe the purpose of this post was to say that it is okay that bad things happen because they allow us to better see the good things. But what I am saying is that if bad things stopped happening then as a result so would good things. While the actual actions taking place would continue, we would not perceive them as good, merely average. So really it is neither good nor bad that "bad things" happen. It is at best in a superposition of both good and bad and directly dependent on a biased, opinionated observer.
“Without pain, how could we know joy?' This is an old argument in the field of thinking about suffering and its stupidity and lack of sophistication could be plumbed for centuries but suffice it to say that the existence of broccoli does not, in any way, affect the taste of chocolate.” John Green to the rescue.
wow i love you for quoting john green, but i was thinking of that quote a while ago and food definetly wouldnt be the best example because there would still be lots of horrible foods and lots of good tasting foods. if we all only ate chocolate it would still have a great taste, although we'd get used to it and its magnificence would definetly wear off. Kind of like what scientist was saying above.
Good is a relative term. If bad things never happened we would not recognise the good because it would not be good. It would be average.
ya that's kind of the point i was trying to make.. but i guess i didnt really word it correctly.
Well the point I'm trying to make is that there would be little value to things you and I call "good" if the things you and I call "bad" don't exist. I believe the purpose of this post was to say that it is okay that bad things happen because they allow us to better see the good things. But what I am saying is that if bad things stopped happening then as a result so would good things. While the actual actions taking place would continue, we would not perceive them as good, merely average. So really it is neither good nor bad that "bad things" happen. It is at best in a superposition of both good and bad and directly dependent on a biased, opinionated observer.